Economic reconstruction
to strengthen peace
Economic
reconstruc tion and humanitarian issues have been placed at the forefront
of the phased peace process. No doubt these were the least contentious
issues and they have been the easiest first step of what has been
described as "a step by step process".
The two issues
of humanitarian rehabilitation and economic reconstruction are inextricably
connected owing to the aftermath of the enormous damage to physical
infrastructure and the vast number of persons unable to live and
earn a livelihood in the North and parts of the East.
The cost of
the reconstruction would be huge. No precise estimates are still
available. It would also vary with the type of reconstruction that
is envisaged. It is recognised that the reconstruction effort cannot
be undertaken with the resources of the country alone. In fact the
debilitated and weak state of the economy precludes any possibility
of substantial government resources for the reconstruction. An international
effort is undoubtedly needed. The international community has for
a number of years pledged and reiterated their willingness to help
in the reconstruction effort.
They have promised
large sums that would be available once peace is achieved. Some
countries have very recently promised fresh sums for particular
purposes as well. There is enough international goodwill and promises
of substantial aid. The difficulty lies in the foreign donors wanting
clear evidence of a durable peace. Without evidence of a durable
peace donors would be unwilling to spend large sums of their tax
payers money for a reconstruction that could only be followed by
further war and destruction.
Did the outcome of the peace talks provide adequate evidence of
an emerging durable peace? The most hopeful signs came from Anton
Balasingham's statement that the LTTE was not asking for a separate
state outside Sri Lanka's national integrity. What they now wanted
was the devolution of power for the Tamil people to run their own
affairs, in what has been continuously described by the LTTE as
the "Tamil homeland".
There were other statements however that diluted the contents of
this and once again created suspicions. These we will not discuss,
as we ourselves would like to stress the positive aspect of the
talks and take the peace process further. The LTTE position of not
wanting a separate state if sufficient devolution of power is permitted
within a unitary state must be strengthened and taken further.
The peace loving
Tamil people must hail this new position of dropping the claim for
a non-viable separate state that would surely lead to bloodshed
and misery for the Tamil people. The donor community has a right
to require evidence of a durable peace. They must push the LTTE
towards making it very clear that they are for national integrity.
The government has reiterated that the devolution of authority for
the North and East is acceptable.
The details
need to be worked out, but the possibility of a settlement is in
sight if these positions are clear. The donor community that requires
evidence of a durable peace has a right to ask the LTTE to make
an even clearer statement of this fact before commitment of substantial
aid.
The commitment
of aid itself could be made a catalyst in the peace process. It
would also reduce the southern discomfort about Eelam and thereby
enable the government to proceed with the next steps in devolution.
The Norwegian Minister made a plea for the international community
to commence their aid for the reconstruction, now that there was
evidence of a positive march towards peace. The donors could perhaps
commit an initial tranche of their aid on the basis of their perception
that first steps have been taken towards peace and insist on further
evidence at the second round at the end of October. This would be
of assistance in the economic reconstruction as well as on speeding
up the peace process. In as much as a quick resolution of the problem
is unrealistic, an excessively dragged out process may be counter-
productive and should be avoided.
The economic
priorities are clear. The rebuilding and improvement of infrastructure
would be the first priority. The second would be the vitalising
of economic activities that languished owing to the war. Foremost
among these would be the fishing industry. The rehabilitation of
fishing should be also accompanied with a degree of modernisation
and improvement in technology. Agriculture too would have to be
developed on new lines with emphasis on high value crops, agricultural
processing and must look to crops with an export potential. The
adoption of new methods and technology that would enhance productivity
must be an underlying strategy.
Education that
was the pride of the North would be an area for developing excellence
and providing skilled personnel for rapid development of the nation.
Once again there needs to be a new emphasis and priorities in education
and skill development to meet the needs of rapid Industrialisation.
The progress of the reconstruction effort would require more evidence
of a durable peace. The first signs of peace must be consolidated
in the coming months to make the essential reconstruction of the
war-torn areas a reality.
|